The statement by the Home Minister that certain laws will be reviewed to allow the public to assemble in specific places, such as stadiums, without the need for a police permit is an attempt to restrict demonstrations in public places. We would like to remind the Minister that he has no right to stop any peaceful demonstrations that people choose to participate in.

The right to demonstrate is part and parcel of the right to freedom of expression guaranteed in our Constitution. The right to freedom of expression means nothing if it does not include expressing our views in “public places” including streets, parks, plazas, in front of government buildings, and even shopping complexes. Such public spaces have come to be considered as “free speech areas”.

Obtaining a police permit for a demonstration should merely be a formality to inform the police of the time and place where a demonstration or rally is organized. This is done so that the police will be able to redirect traffic and to ensure safety of the public and of the participants of the assembly. A permit cannot be denied on the grounds that the event is controversial or will express unpopular views.

In great contrast, what we have seen in demonstrations in Malaysia recently, for example during the May Day Rally on 1 May 2011, is the presence of the police who behave provocatively by indiscriminately using violence against participants of the event. Neutral observers, such as SUHAKAM, and Bar Council can testify to this.

SUARAM would like to remind the government that the National Human Rights Commission, SUHAKAM has recommended in its 2007 report that “peaceful assemblies should be allowed to proceed without a license”. Reporting on the inquiry into a public demonstration against fuel price increases in Kuala Lumpur on 28 May 2006, the Commission concluded that the police had used excessive force; that they had infringed on the rights of some of the participants; and that certain officers could be charged under the Penal Code.

Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the Federal Constitution clearly guarantees our right to freedom of assembly. Nowhere does it impose restrictions on where people can exercise this freedom.

We are human beings who have the basic human right to hold peaceful protests and marches to express our opinions and to draw the attention of the public to issues which concern us all. This is a widely recognized right in the international community and we would like to stress to the government that this right cannot be taken away from the citizens of Malaysia.

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) and Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA (GMI) strongly condemn the deportation of the Abdul Majid Kunji Mohamed alleged of being channeled money and supplying double-purpose engineering equipment to a militant group in the southern Philippines. Abdul Majid was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) on the 6th May 2011 and he was deported back to his country on the 19 May 2011.

SUARAM and GMI regrets that the Home Minister who controls the Police Department, has made decisions to disallow the detainee from seeing respective legal counsels during his 13 days of detention under the section 73 of the draconian ISA. We do not see any security or diplomacy difficulties in allowing the lawyers to perform their duty. The denial of access to legal assistance and the deportation of the detainee without proper trial are totally uncalled for and embarrassing. The government is not even bothered to provide a reasonable answer for their irresponsible actions. This is a typical case of how arrogant the authorities can be when granted absolute power. We view the authorities’ move to deport the detainee as malicious.

We are very concerned about Abdul Majid’s safety as the Singapore government also has a similar Act in their country and we afraid that Abdul Majid who was deported to his country of origin will experience another round of investigations. This is unfair to the detainee who until now, has failed to be produced before a court.

Furthermore, the wife and the children of Abdul Majid still live in Malaysia. We urge the government to take care of the families’ welfare and their daily needs as the government is responsible for making the family’s life miserable without the husband and the children without their father.

SUARAM and GMI recognize the seriousness of the terrorist activities and are of the view that proper measures should be taken to improve the situation. However, these measures must nevertheless be consistent with international human rights standards and norms. Detaining any individuals without trial under the ISA breaches fundamental human rights that are enshrined in, among others, article 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights –
v “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” and
v “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”

The use of the ISA on the current detainee demonstrates yet again how the state can arbitrarily use this infamous tool on anyone. ISA is a very convenient tool to cover-up real issues and weaknesses of the system.

SUARAM and GMI also reiterate that punishing or detaining people without giving them any opportunity to defend themselves is barbaric. Uncivilized laws that permit detention without trial are a pain of the democratic system and must be abolished. We also demand Abdul Majid to be released immediately or charge him at open court!

Suaram expresses disappointment and concern over the detention of the three youths under the Restricted Residence Act (RRA) 1933 for 2 years. The detention orders under the RRA were issued by the Home Minister on 17 May 2011. This has made the habeas corpus applications that Suaram has planned to file has been made academic. The three individuals are Muhamad Arif bin Abu Samah (19 years old), Mohamed Ramadan bin Muhamed Ali (22 years old) and Mohamed Rafe bin Mohamed Ali (20 years old). Muhamad Arif was send to Mersing, Johor (for 2 years), Mohamed Ramdan to Chenon, Pahang (2 years) and Mohamed Rafe to Kulim, Kedah for 2 years as well.
The three were arrested by the Gombak District police officers on the 8th of March 2011 allegedly for involvement for possession of a stolen vehicle in their residential area in Selayang. But until today these allegations against them have not been proven in any court. On the other hand, the three of them have also been brought on a ‘remand roadshow’ by the police before being pinned under the Emergency Ordinance (Public Order and Crime Prevention). On 19 March 2011, they were served with detention orders under the EO which allows for detention without trial. The three have been detained for 60 days and they were tortured physically and mentally by the police during the entire duration of their detention. They were severely kicked and beaten with iron pipe, wire and aluminum. Other than that, they were also not allowed to meet with lawyer for nearly two months. Besides that, the family members of Mohamed Ramadan and Mohamed Rafe has also been duped by a man calling himself as an Inspector to extort money of RM 13,000 from them.
SUARAM is appalled at the increasing number of youngsters detained under the EO. SUARAM strongly condemns the Minister’s decision to pursue the detention of the youths under the RRA. Worst still, the detainees will most likely face traumatic experiences and difficulties in their new restricted area. Their rights to move freely, rights to education and more importantly, rights to live a better life with their family have been deprived. This is an outright abuse of power by the Minister who has been blindly signing the detention orders. The gross misuse and abuse of the EO on ordinary citizens of the country does not merely lie with the police but with the slipshod manner of the Home Ministry itself.

As of now, more than 1000 persons were being detained without trial under the EO at Simpang Renggam Detention Centre and other detention centres around the country. This number does not include those detained without trial in other police stations around the country. Going by this number of people detained, the EO can be deemed to be ten times worse than the infamous Internal Security Act (ISA) which also allows for arbitrary detention.

SUARAM recognizes the responsibility of the Malaysian government to curb crime and to deal with criminals, gangs and syndicates. But the government should not resort to means that violates human rights such as the EO in efforts to address criminal activity. Unfortunately in Malaysia, EO has been frequently abused by the police and government to deal with suspects of petty crimes. This is an outright misuse of power by the police and the Home Ministry in dealing with the EO detainees, particularly when they have absolute power and their decision cannot be challenged in court. Detention of any individual without trial is a violation of fundamental human rights.

SUARAM urges the government to withdraw the restricted order that have been served to the three detainees that have been mention above and immediately release them without any further conditions.

Detention without trial is a gross human rights violation. It violates Article 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and Article 8 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Federal Constitution which guarantees due process and security of persons.

Therefore, we call up on the government to:
Immediately repeal the EO, DDA and ISA;
Stop arresting youths and minors under the EO and respect their rights as laid out under CRC;
Stop re-arresting individuals under the same law (or any other preventive laws) especially those released by the courts through habeas corpus applications or through the recommendations of the Advisory Board ; if need be, they should be charged under existing criminal laws;
The police should immediately stop making any further arrests under EO ;
All those who are currently detained or restricted under EO should be released immediately or be charged in open court under existing criminal laws.

Sodomy II: The Crumbling Credibility of the Malaysian Judiciary Reaffirmed!

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) is most concerned with the outcome of the Kuala Lumpur High Court this morning, where trial judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah, has found a prima facie case against Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim and has ordered him to enter his defence.

Anwar is charged with sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan at the Desa Damansara condominium on June 26, 2008. If found guilty under section 377B of the Penal Code, Anwar could face a jail term of not less than five years and a maximum of 20 years.

SUARAM has expressed concern during the trial with the apparent bias of the court proceedings; which was demonstrated time and again when Anwar’s defence team was denied access to medical reports and other documents, a defendant’s fundamental right to due process.

This led to the ridiculous scenario of doctors, who were being cross-examined by defence lawyers, but who were unable to refer to notes that they had made during the medical examination of Saiful Bukhari, since access to the notes would also have to be granted to the defence.

SUARAM also disagrees with the judge’s acceptance of the testimony of the three doctors; as it is clear that there are clear contradictions in their testimonies; to be the basis that there was indeed penetration, which requires the defence to call its case. But then again the trial judge himself had shown so much inconsistency by reversing his decision, from initially rejecting to accepting the DNA samples obtained from the lockup room where Anwar was detained.

In delivering his decision, the trial judge was reported to have commented on the credibility and truthfulness of the main witness in the case, Saiful Bukhari Azlan. SUARAM is concerned with the judge’s comments as he appears to have prejudged the case before the defence has presented its case. It is laughable that the trial judge would go out of his way to say that Saiful Bukhari was a “credible and truthful witness” when the said witness has given contradictory statements and was even romantically involved with one of the prosecutors in the case.

It is important to note that that the very basis of Anwar’s defence is that there is a political conspiracy to victimise him and as such, illogical and unlikely claims, loopholes in stories and inconsistencies in the testimonies cannot be disregarded and must be given due consideration. SUARAM feels that the judge, in establishing that there is prima facie, had not taken account of these factors.

This morning’s outcome has reconfirmed what SUARAM has repeatedly warned all along; that the courts have become mere puppets to the government of the day, succumbing to political pressures and making biased political decisions instead of legal decisions based on justice and fair play. The credibility of the Malaysian judiciary is further crumbling, as the ruling powers bend over backwards to hold on to their might and strengthen their grip on power.